Thread replies: 26
Thread images: 8
Thread images: 8
Anonymous
A explanation of the labor theory of value. 2017-05-29 01:10:18 Post No. 127572730
[Report] Image search: [Google]
A explanation of the labor theory of value. 2017-05-29 01:10:18 Post No. 127572730
[Report] Image search: [Google]
File: Hammer_and_sickle_red_on_transparent.svg.png (8KB, 200x200px) Image search:
[Google]
8KB, 200x200px
A explanation of the labor theory of value.
Anonymous
2017-05-29 01:10:18
Post No. 127572730
[Report]
What is value? "Value" refers not to mere labor time, but abstract labor time. Not concrete labor, which is the labor of, say, a specific miner in mining iron. This labor results in a certain object (iron) that is a use-value. But when we go to the market, we see certain quantities of objects being equated with other quantities of objects; four eggs is worth a yard of linen, two chairs are worth three bars of iron - or, in the case of a developed market with money, four eggs is worth a quarter of an ounce of gold (lol, almost $83 an egg), two chairs are worth a half an ounce of gold, etc. If you want paper money, you can replace gold with an equivalent amount of dollars (like I did with the eggs).
So the ratios at which certain commodities exchange for others (i.e. exchange-value, of which price is a subset) seem independent of the use-values that concrete labor confers on them (the price of iron and the use-values of iron are qualitatively different). What the market is actually doing is "creating" "quantitative worth" - that is, we can actually measure how much a yard of linen is worth in terms of eggs or chairs or gold or dollars. And to quote Anwar Shaikh:
It follows from this that the very same social relations which endow use-values with the property of "quantitative worth," endow the labor which produces these use-values with the capacity to create "quantitative worth."
In other words, every time capitalism "says" a commodity has exchange-value in the market because it exchanges in particular ratios with other commodities, capitalism "deduces retroactively" that the labor that produced this commodity must have the ability to "produce" exchange-value; or at least, capitalism "acts" like it does. But not the concrete labor - we already know that concrete labor has nothing to do with price. Concrete labor just produces use-values. The other aspect of labor that the market "makes up" - the aspect of labor that produces exchange-value - is abstract labor;
>>
>>127572730
the labor that the market "pretends exists" in order to be able to quantitatively compare two commodities.
This is what "underlying values" are. Abstract labor; from the market's point of view, all labor is "made of" the same "stuff" because it only sees commodities as varying exchange-values and not the separate, completely unique objects that are their use-values.
I completely acknowledge that I have written the above material very weirdly, as if capitalism and the market are conscious actors, but this is only a metaphorical device to show that social relations (e.g. capitalism, the market, private property in the production process,) are what creates or allows to exist the existence of "value" (abstract labor). As such, I also acknowledge that to many it may sound like crackpot nonsense, and if so, I invite anyone to come forward with questions they have about abstract labor. It may help to go step-by-step with those that are confused.
To go back to what I was saying, abstract labor is the cause of exchange-value. And if we look at commodity production from the perspective of society as a whole, the exchange-value of a commodity represents the average abstract labor time necessary for its production, since abstract labor produces exchange-value. Marx calls this average abstract labor time "value" (average simply because in exchange, all commodities of a given type are treated alike, so each commodity is an "average sample of its class").
This is all to explain what "abstract labor" is and how it relates to prices. But how can prices be explained? This part is obviously also super important; if Marx's law of value cannot explain prices, then it isn't worth jack shit in explaining capitalism.
>>
>>127572730
Labor theory of value is a failure. I can tell that as a communist (and having a job that involves some economic analysis). Marx himself wasn't happy with it, nor did he quite finish it due to death.
>>
>>127572730
This sounds almost like the old medieval concept of a "just price"
>>
File: tmp_26333-1556251643040540.jpg (17KB, 326x454px) Image search:
[Google]
17KB, 326x454px
>>127572730
>>
>>127573065
Expand please
>>
>>127572730
>>127572820
When will you fucking communists learn to fuck off?
>>
>>127573675
Karl Marx lived before the era of sales and marketing :P
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=audakxABYUc
>>
>>127574208
Doesn't refute the point though
>>
File: tmp_19055-14958544387951422672968.jpg (581KB, 2340x1978px) Image search:
[Google]
581KB, 2340x1978px
ITT retarded commies find ways to make 'money can be exchanged for goods and services but it's not capitalism' sound like an actual idea.
You god damn retards need to die.. why are you here? This is not a communist safe space?
Someone get the fucking helicopter. If I catch you opening your mouths about this in real life I'll cut you the fuck open.
>>
>>127572730
Say that again but without your college professor's cock down your throat, you sound like a parrot.
>>
File: tmp_19055-14941308445161729211818.jpg (594KB, 1452x1448px) Image search:
[Google]
594KB, 1452x1448px
>>127573675
Fucking. Exactly. This. My fucking god I hate Marxist autistic retards. They're always certainly 22 years old and going to be very very annoying and poor until they get jobs at BuzzFeed as journalists
>>
>>127574682
Makes you wonder what Marx would've thought about Diamond Shreddies though
>>
>>127573675
It seems you haven't understood Marx, shart in mall.
>>
>>127572730
Basically first 100 pages of "Das Kapital"
Simplified
>You have use value of commodities, that is the value determined by the usefulness of something at a given time. If it's winter, the use value of coats will rise since they are now more useful and vice versa
>You have exchange value, a value that depends on the market and all other values. This value is determined by other exchange values, if value of one commodity suddenly drops all others will change respectfully
>The exchange value can change regardless of the use value and vice versa
>There must be some universal measurement of value that we could use to measure the value of a certain commodity independent of it's usefulness at a time or other commodities
>This is called just "Value" - it is an abstraction of quality labour put into creating a commodity
>>
>>127573675
Yeah, that's exchange value, it's the value measured in money. Marx doesn't say that his "Value" should be used, he realizes things like this. He just defines it because he uses is later in the book. The value theory is not supposed to be implemented, it's not even a theory. He just defines some things so that he could later use them in explaining other things
>>
>>127577110
It's just the thing that 90% of people who read Kapital don't read past the first 10 pages that include the dreaded "Value theory' and believe the Marx wants to implement it. It would be if you read the dedication page for Darwin's "On the origin of species" and tried to use it to disproof evolution
>>
>>127572730
How the hell is the working class supposed to understand this? Abstract labour? How do you actually calculate value based on "abstract labour"?
I make music. I put many hours of work into my songs. The songs are worth virtually nothing. This is because people don't want to buy them. The value of my songs are worth EXACTLY the amount that people decide they are worth - i.e. if someone pays me $1 for 1 song - that song is worth $1.
>>
>>127572730
>>127572820
The LTV is completely useless because it is a very long-winded explanation to get part of what the mainstream theory already says. The whole reason for taking the long road is to be able to say that workers are being exploited along the way. But the whole idea is that technology is a determinant of value. That's not novel, and actually quite mundane.
tl;dr LTV is useless
>>
>>127577451
>How the hell is the working class supposed to understand this? Abstract labour?
They don't, and that's the point. They will just hear that all value comes from their labor, that rich people are stealing from them and fall for empty promises of higher wages/wealth. But they will know respected (((intellectuals))) have thought this through and they're probably right.
The main driver of communism on the field is petty envy.
>>
>2017
>unironically believing labor theory of value
It's like believing Geocentric universe theory. Hundreds years ago it may be considered as true but people figured out why the fuck it is wrong. Value is deternmined by demand and supply and it hat nothing with capitalism. It is just a fucking fact.
>>
File: communism-is-jewish3.png (13KB, 642x591px) Image search:
[Google]
13KB, 642x591px
>>127572730
sage
>>
File: hang-neo-communists.jpg (89KB, 600x450px) Image search:
[Google]
89KB, 600x450px
>>127578324
sage
>>
Not sure if you just left the thread OP, but I'd appreciate a reply >>127577451
>>
>>127578324
>>127578383
Those are good redpills newfag but posting about sage is forbidden.
Thread posts: 26
Thread images: 8
Thread images: 8